November 03, 2006

If the Arab world and Iran embark on an orgy of bloodshed, the harsh truth is that we may be thebeneficiaries.

But first Syria and Iran are going to ally, to kill the US, because it now appears the US is weaker than either faction, and therefore both factions have a better chance of survival by uniting and crushing us, the weak third leg, first. The triumverate is stable because if all 3 are equal in power, then the first guy that attacks one of the legs, is going to get himself fatigued. That way, the third party can decide when to join in the fight, and on which side. Obviously the Arabs are not going to fight amongst themselves until they get rid of the occupation Americans, who are enemies of all humanity.

Yes, Arabs fight amongst themselves, their families, and so forth. But has Ralph ever heard of the saying me and my brother against my neighbor, me and my brother with my neighbor, against the foreign invader?

You think the foreign invade riff is going to disappear when the US gets out? This is the 21st century we are in, Ralph, not the 19th.

Iraq still deserves one last chance  as long as we don't confuse deadly stubbornness and perseverance. If, at this late hour, Iraqis in decisive numbers prove willing to fight for their own freedom and a constitutional government,

Are you totally riffing the DU here or something?

Since when did the military think that large numbers of untrained civilian members could equal the ferocity of a decisively disciplined unit composed of a team working towards a mission and goal?

Ralph is acting more like a populist, and less like a military genius. Try and decide which one you want to be. Do you want to be a people's revolutionary, classical liberal, or do you want to be a military expediency kind of guy for the army.

The perspectives are totally different, regardless of individual goals.

If people want more uncorrupt and disciplined Iraqi forces. Then they need to implement, top down overrides from Bush to Maliki, what is known as frag orders and Sun Tzu discipline. Meaning, anybody that steals, gets executed, via court martial, in 24 hours. Those who disobey direct orders, presenting cowardice in the face of enemy, should be killed by firing squad if not their own unit punished by Roman decimation.

If you don't want to do that, if you just want to sit on your arse complaining that the Iraqis don't know jack about military tactics and getting "decisive numbers willing to fight", then you can't complain worth Rather, Ralph. If you ain't willing to do the deed, and kill those who need killing, then you can't be talking about how you got any credibility complaining about someone else's unwillingness. Bush or Maliki's.

If you want people willing to fight, then you'd better execute those death squads that are holding the family of the police and I G hostage, in public. If you want people to volunteer, then you'd better be willing to not only die for their sake, but slaughter as many people as it takes to ensure their safety and their family's safety. This "don't kill Sadr, it'll make him a martyr" might be Bush's fault since it was his decision to make, but Ralph here complaining about stuff isn't any better.

If Ralph wants to win, then he better analyze the game plan, come up with alternatives, and then be willing to stick his neck ontop of the block in saying "go with my solution, if you do, we win, but if you lose and you do, I'll be willing to be court martialed for it".

The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization. All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follows.

Ralph had the perfect chance to blame Bush's no micromanagemnet, no nation building, strategy right here and right now. He also had the perfect chance to start blaming the senior officer and flag corps for failing to be hardcore and ruthless in forcing Bush to look at some hardcore tactics and actions.

But instead, he talks about the violence staining Baghdad's streets as if it is the Iraqi government's fault. There is a saying in China. If you save a man's life, then you are responsible for that man's life. I read it as, if you have power over another, then if things are pocked up, you are the one to blame. The buck stops here, at the superior officer's desk. He is the one that gives the orders, he is the one that takes the rewards, and he is the one that should accept the blame. For a military guy, who knows discipline and the chain of rank, he sure tends to ignore the responsibilities of America and the President.

On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki obeyed Muqtada al-Sadr's command to withdraw U.S. troops from Baghdad's Sadr City. He halted a vital U.S. military operation. It was the third time in less than a month that al-Maliki had sided with the anti-American cleric against our forces.

What the fook did you expect? The abused woman isn't going to go with the sissy liberal, against the hardcore mofo called her husband, unless you can demonstrate that you are able to protect her from the hardcore mofos. The fact that BUSH, not Maliki, authorized the continual life and existence of Al Sadr, meant that AlSadr now has a POLITICAL BASE from which to influence the Prime Minister. Maliki didn't get into power by a large margin, but by like one vote, if I recall. Without Al Sadr, where would he be? Maliki is simply going with the party that brung him. And if you want to blame anyone, you can blame America for being sissy enough to think that acting weak will get anyone on our side.

Ralph has no problems blaming the President for a bunch of crack that the President could not change and should not have changed. But when it is time to hold Bush accountable for listening to some idiotic advisers of his, oh now it is the Iraqi's fault.

President Bush insists that we have no conflicts with the al-Maliki government. The president isn't telling the truth — or he himself doesn't support our military's efforts.

Bush is telling the exact pocking Truth, just like he told the truth that he was waiting for the Governor of Louis. to authorize troops. Bush is UNABLE to be a bully, he is UNABLE to intimidate and override even idiots like Tenet and Plame. See, this is the kind of criticism that gets nowhere because it isn't based upon the truth. Bush not telling the truth? To Bush, he has to agree with maliki, that is why he freaking gave Iraqi sovereignty in the first place. If he didn't believe that Iraqis should rule themselves, he wouldn't have done that until the Iraq was over and done with.

If you think the Iraqis shouldn't rule themselves, that Pax Americana should do it for them via martial law, then that's okay. Then you can criticize Bush's actions all you want, for giving Iraqis' too much autonomy. But the path the President chose has consequences. He is relying upon the Iraqi shock troops to take the casualties and to execute the enemy, in ways that Bush is unwilling to authorize openly and cleanly.

In order to do so with any chance of success, Bush is counting on politics to smooth the way, to get a political organization up that will take care of Sadr and the cuckoo Baathists. Bush isn't a military genius, and he isn't very ruthless politically. So obviously when Sadr got up a socialist network and got seats in the government, he was probably taken by surprise, and when Sadr started doing power plays, Bush couldn't execute him now, can he, now that Bush has given Iraqis sovereignty. Bush's position is quite consistent, he is not telling any lies.

I only wish the administration had done it competently.

Ralph won't even talk about what competency "IS". Is competency declaring martial law and executing anyone who attacks Americans and the government? Is competency overriding Maliki, holding a gun to his head, and declaring Al Sadr dead on arrival? Is competency, when Bush listens to everything Ralph says and wants? What exactly IS competency here? I've already declared my view of competency. Competency is when Bush unleashes the limits on our military, and have them execute all and any enemies to Iraq and to America. Baathists, Iranian agents, Syrian agents, Saudi Arabian suicide bombers, Al Sadr loyalists, Badr brigade militias, it Don't Matter. Kill them all.

When you kill them all, then the government can be established without corruption. Do you really think America's revolutionary government would have been okay, had there been like 50% British loyalists in the country and IN the government? Do you really think America would have survived after winning the Revolutionary, had America not exiled the British loyalists to Canada and Britain?

You have to GET RID of the internal enemies first, before any "competent government" structure may arrive. If Bush isn't willing to do it, then yes, that shows a lack of ruthlessness and will. If Maliki isn't willing to do, it doesn't show a lack of will. What it shows is a LACK OF POWER. That is different. Bush has the power but not the will. But Maliki does not have the power, regardless of whether he wants to kill Sadr or not.

The country's prime minister has thrown in his lot with al-Sadr, our mortal enemy. He has his eye on the future, and he's betting that we won't last.

And this is Mailiki's fault because.... America is a child and we can't help ourselves? The buck stops at America's desk. Bush was the one who gave sovereignty to the Iraqis. If you want to blame the faults in iraq on someone, blame it on Bush, but don't try to blame everyone. If you want to blame Maliki, then you can't blame Bush at the same time. Vice a versa as well.

The valor of our enemies never surpassed that of our troops, but it far exceeded the fair-weather courage of the Bush administration.

The fair weather courage? You're the one crying and moaning about "oh shat, we gonna be dead soon". Bush is stubborn as hell. When I say Bush doesn't have the will, I'm talking about the Imperial Will to dominate and annihilate his enemies, like Plame and Sadr. If you want to talk about the will to stay in the fight, then hell, Bush has it more than Ralph.

They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win.

Since Al Qaeda is ruthless, unlike Bush, they will win. Didn't just ralph say that Bush lacked the will or something? Didn't Ralph just say that our enemies' will exceeds our own? So how the hell is he going to say that if we leave, they aren't going to win?

Now Sala, some fake liberal idiot said this in the comments section of Ralph's piece.

The Pottery Barn rules still applies: YOU BROKE IT YOU OWN IT. You cannot foist your mistakes on other people. You must own them to the bitter end. That means that you must own all of the consequences of your mistakes and do your best to correct them which includes accepting full responsibility.

The Left gives you all the excuse America needs for a reign of terror, as a way to get rid of the enemies to Iraqi liberty and as a way to enforce peace through the gun and sword. The iron fist.

Take the excuse. There is no reason Bush refuses to do so, other than the fact that Bush's principles prevent him from going hardcore in Iraq. He thinks too much of the Constitution and self-autonomy of others. Bush won't even use his Constitutional powers of veto and sending in the national guard, here in US. You think lots of Iraqis dieing in Iraqi is going to make Bush cut the orders to the military to purge iraq of all domestic and foreign enemies?

The bitter end to me, is when we hang up every Baathist and Al Sadr militia guy, along with those Iranian dudes, along the streets of Baghdad and then ignite their bodies while the national cameras are roving. That includes the guys in the prisons by the way.

I'm not the one complaining and moaning about Bush's mistakes here, there, whatever. Whatever Bush's mistakes, there are solutions right now. Either Ralph doesn't care about talking about those solutions, or he won't support them. If he won't support them, fine, but then why is he complaining.

Bush won't support my methods. But Bush is not complaining, so that is okay. If you want to complain about things you don't like, then you are't allowed to refuse solutions unless you have a better one.

Then, last month, as Iraq's prime minister seconded al-Sadr's demand that our troops free a death-squad mastermind they had captured, I knew a fateful page had turned. A week later, al-Maliki forbade additional U.S. military raids in Sadr City, the radical mullah's Baghdad stronghold. On Tuesday, al-Maliki insisted that our troops remove roadblocks set up to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier. Iraq's prime minister has made his choice. We're not it. It's time to face reality. Only Iraqis can save Iraq now — and they appear intent on destroying it. Après nous, le deluge.

Ralph will blame Bush. Then when Maliki doesn't do something he likes, he blames Maliki. Does the whole causality chain principle even affect Ralph Peters? I mean, really. He is not a civilian. He knows from whom power accrues, power accrues from the MOST powerful, on down. From the President, to the SecDef, to the Generals, to the junior officers, to the NCOs and privates. From the most powerful, to the least powerful.

Who the hell do you think is the most powerful nation on this planet? And who do you think is the youngest and most unstable nation on this planet? From where should power flow?

If a General isn't paying attention and then says "oh, sure Captain, do whatever you want, you are golden". Is it the fault of the captain when he screws up and massacres a town, or is it the fault of the General for not micromanaging?

Bush knows there are bad apples in Iraq. Bush won't get rid of them. Ralph likes blaming Bush. But it seems Ralph likes blaming anyone that is closest to him, more than he likes blaming Bush. He is not consistent.

Even the Left with their talking points are more consistent than that.